text:
Table of Contents
Package Managment
Many users decide to use Linux based Operating Systems because of the freedoms they enjoy, included in the list is the freedom to choose the right tool for the job. The Slackware package management schema is a model for displaying the choices that are available to the users. When maintaining a server or even a personal system a certain amount of control must be given to the administrator, the control and simplicity of Slackware package management is what may in fact make you want to try or continue to use Slackware.
Brief Explanation of Slackware Packages
In terms of security and accountability Slackware is excellent because it brings you software in the condition that the authors intended. What this means is that the Slackware community does not modify the source or add and remove functions from software beyond the author's design, unless a small patch is required to work on Slackware. All packages are built using the original source code in which only official patches are applied, the only modifications that are made for the packages are adding .desktop files (executables for windows managers) and running installed applications/scripts to update databases, font or icon caches to include the newly installed files.
Other distributions such as debian and redhat choose to modify the original source code with their own revisions prior to distribution, this can add additional functionality but in some cases such as the debian OpenSSL packages it can result in exploits that only effect the specific distribution which can remain unseen for some time because the original authors (those who know the applications best) were not responsible for the changes or aware of the changes. This additional liability is something that an administrator does not want hanging over their head when running a production system which requires heightened security and uptime, with Slackware these issues cannot happen as all code that is used has been developed by those who know the functionality of the applications best, namely the original authors.
Slackware packages can be found with any of the following extensions:
- tbz - Slackware package archive compressed using bzip2
- tlz - Slackware package archive compressed using lzip
- tgz - Slackware package archive compressed using gzip
- txz - Slackware package archive compressed using xz
The reason for the various package formats is the evolution of compression tools, as better tools have been developed Slackware has adapted their packages to take advantage of the higher compression tools.
Currently the two most commonly used formats are tgz and txz. txz is the current standard for official packages because of the increased compression rate, this change has allowed the development team to reduce the filesize in installation packages which in turn reduced the space requirements on the installation DVD, leaving additional space for new applications or documentation to be added in the same space as before. The tgz format has a less impressive compression rate but it is sufficient for packages that you build on your system such as slackbuilds, since on most modern systems disk space is abundant.
Dependency Tracking
One of the major complaints by new users is the fact that Slackware does not automatically track dependencies and install dependencies when you install a file. To many this may seem like a negative mark against Slackware, but many users prefer to know exactly what is installed on their systems and what it is for. The lack of dependency tracking allows the system administrators to install only the dependencies that are required for their necessary functionality without introducing unneeded components.
Why restrict Automatic Dependency Resolution?
- Lack of administrative control
- It prompts for installation of packages that may have a bad security history, without manual research you would not be able to verify the security history of an installed package
- It may install an application that conflicts with current installed applications, which can break software components in your system.
- If you may decide to recompile an application and remove certain functions, the removal of said functions may eliminate the need to have specific dependencies installed but with an auto-resolution system it will force those packages even though they are not needed.
The official and many of the third-party package management tools in Slackware try to keep away from automatic dependency resolution so the administrator is in full control of the system.
Installation and Package Management Tools
There are many package management tools for Slackware,both official and from third-parties, both groups are discussed below.
Official Tools
Included in the base installation of Slackware are two packages pkgtools and slackpkg.
pkgtools contains a set of applications that are to be used for basic package management.
slackpkg is a package manager and update tool for you to use with the official Slackware servers.
pkgtools contains the following executable applications
- installpkg - This application is used to install a new package.
- removepkg -This application is used to remove a package from your system.
- upgradepkg - upgradepkg upgrades a Slackware package from an older version to a newer one. It does this by isntalling the new package onto the system, and then removing any files from the old package that aren't in the new package (taken from the man pages).
- explodepkg - This tool uncompresses and untars a Slackware package into your current directory so the contents can be reviewed prior to installation.
- pkgtool - pkgtool is a menu-driven package maintenance tool provided with the Slackware Linux distribution. It allows the user to install, remove, or view software packages through an interactive system. Pkgtool can also be used to re-run the menu-driven scripts normally executed at the end of a Slackware installation. This is useful for doing basic reconfiguration (like changing the mouse type). (taken from the man pages).
- makepkg - This application is used to create a new Slackware package from the contents of your current directory.
slackpkg is to be used to install official slackware packages from the official Slackware servers and to manage updates and upgrades. This tools is very useful for keeping a system up-to-date and for doing a distribution version upgrade without having to do a complete reinstall or having to download and burn a disk.
Unofficial Tools
The unofficial tools are tools that were made by third parties which are not officially supported by Slackware. These tools can be broken into two groups package retrieval and package building.
The package retrieval tools have a functionality which is similar to YAST, yum, apt-get, urpmi and various tools which are used in other distributions. These package retrieval tools call to specific online package repositories which have been set by the user and allow the user to search the repositories to download and install pre-configured packages.
In contrast the package building tools are somewhat similar to the package retrieval tools but rather than downloading a pre-build package they retrieve a build script (which can be customized) and the subsequent source code allowing the user to custom compile an application for their system and their needs. Once the application has been compiled, the scripts pass the proper instructions to utilize the resulting binaries and build a Slackware formatted package that properly interacts with the Slackware package management tools. The best comparison for package building tools is to compare them to the portage system that is used in Gentoo Linux.
Listed below are the Unofficial tools and a brief explanation of their functionality:
- swaret - This tool is designed to replicate the functionality of the Debian apt-get system, you identify the repositories you would like to use and it allows you to download and install packages from the specified location, this tool also attempts dependency resolution.
- slapt-get - This tool is designed to replicate the functionality of the Debian apt-get system, you identify the repositories you would like to use and it allows you to download and install packages from the specified location(s).
- sbopkg - This tool syncs with the slackbuilds.org build script repository, it is used to pull build scripts, upon choosing the scripts to build it allows you to choose the build order and also customize the scripts. Upon completion of the scripts it will allow you to build a Slackware package or to build and install the package.
- slpkg is a powerful software package manager that installs, updates, and removes packages on Slackware based systems. It automatically computes dependencies and figures out what things should occur to install packages.
Installation Methods
With of the quality of various tools, you have options for various functionality when it comes to package management and installations. The main three methods of installation are listed below:
- Install from a pre-built package
- Compile the application yourself from the source code, This is ill advised in it's standard meaning, I will discuss this later.
- Build a custom package from a build/slackbuild script
Install from a Pre-built Package
To install Slackware from a pre-built package you can use installpkg, upgradepkg, swaret or slapt-get. This is very simple, in swaret or slapt-get you only need to choose the package and select to install it. To install a package using the official tools you only need to call the program and use the package name as the argument, the example below is installing the application wine from the current workin directory.
#installpkg wine-2.5.6-x86.tgz
Compile the Application from the Source Code
Many people have grown accustomed to this method over time, but it is not preferred in Slackware, instead, to document your actions and avoid replication of efforts it is advisable to build a slackbuild script, which will save you time and effort in the future.
Build a Custom Package from a Build/slackbuild Script
This is the true magic in Slackware, every official package that you receive has a slackbuild file, in the source directory on the Slackware disk you will find the slackbuild files and source code for every officially supported package. This availability in the source directory, allows you to view all options/modifications that were done to a package and if you need you can modify the script and arguments to fit your needs. Once the script has been run and the package has been built you then have a redistributable package for the specified application that fits your specific needs.
The slackbuild.org script repository houses user submitted scripts for building stable applications for Slackware that have been tested on various architectures by knowledgeable members of the Slackware community. Included in the slackbuild archive are the build script, license information, .desktop files (if needed), icons, and a .info file that tell you the version, source download location, md5sum, supported architectures and the author of the script. There is also a mailing list and an irc channel available if you have questions or experience problems.
Review slackbuild_scripts for an example of how to build a package from a slackbuild, and how to build custom scripts.
Package Tracking
When using Slackware, you have the ability to track the installation date, installed files, and the package description for all packages that are installed on your system. This tracking is done within the /var/log/packages directory. This directory contains a single text file for each installed application, the file contains the package description and list of installed files/directories from the current package. You can easily view the list of files within the /var/log/packages directory and sort by name, creation date or whatever additional criteria you use.
For some examples of the usability of the /var/log/packages directory, you can review the following:
If you are looking to see what package installed a specific file to your computer, let say the file is /sbin/iptables, you can run the command
grep /sbin/iptables /var/log/packages/*
This will display all files within the package directory that contain the exact phrase that was called by grep.
If you want to review the installed files for a package to find all files that were installed in the /bin directory, let say we are looking at the pkgtools package, you can run the command
grep /var/log/package/pkgtools-13.0-noarch-3.txt "/bin/"
In a similar fashion Slackware moves the text files from /var/log/packages to /var/log/removed-packages when you remove a package from your system, this makes it easier to have adequate tracking of what you have installed and what you removed and when each action was taken, this will help you greatly if you are wanting to replicate the list of installed packages from one system to another, you can easily write a script to compare the output of the folders on both systems and output a resulting file of non-matching packages that you can later use in a script for automatic installation.
More commands and references can be found inthe related articles listed below.
Related Package Managment Articles
Page | Description | Tags |
Package Managment | Package Managment Many users decide to use Linux based Operating Systems because of the freedoms they enjoy, included in the list is the freedom to choose the right tool for the job. The Slackware package management schema is a model for displaying the choices that are available to the users. When maintaining a server or even a personal system a certain amount of control must be given to the administrator, the control and simplicity of Slackware package management is what may in fact make you w… | slackware, package management, author mfillpot |
Unofficial Package Repositories | Unofficial Package Repositories * slackbuilds.org - This site holds community submitted builds scripts to easily build Slackware packages from the source code of various applications. * slackware.it - This is a repository of pre-built packages compiled in various languages. | slackware, package management, package repos, author mfillpot |
Related Package Managment How-Tos
Page | Description | Tags |
Building A Package | Building A Package This is a rough outline for building Slackware packages. Some steps may not be neccessary, some steps might be missing. Use the discussion page for side-notes such as using slacktrack (when DESTDIR fails) and other utilities like checkinstall. | howtos, software, makepkg, package management, author slackwiki |
Building and Installing Packages with sbopkg | Building and Installing Packages with sbopkg Sbopkg is a command-line and dialog-based tool to synchronize with the SlackBuilds.org ("SBo") repository, a collection of third-party SlackBuild scripts to build Slackware packages. The program has a curses based interface which lets you pick and assemble the programs which you want to compile from source into packages. It can also be used non-interactively in case you know beforehand what your goal is - in that case it is | howtos, software, sbo, package management, author ldkraemer |
Installing Software | Installing Software Overview There are three basic ways to install software in Slackware: install a pre-build binary package, make your own package, or compile the sources and install the resulting binaries manually. If you need to compile a program from source code, making it into your own package is easy and useful. Here's how these methods work. | howtos, software, installing, package management, author peterwwillis |
Querying Installed Packages | Querying Installed Packages Sometimes you might want to check whether a particular package is installed or which version of a package is installed on your system. If the package is part of the Slackware installation you could use the slackpkg tool: | howtos, software, package management, package tracking, author sycamorex |


text:
CDC: Salmonella cause of most foodborne-illness outbreaks
(HealthDay)—Food poisoning sickens millions of Americans each year, and most outbreaks are caused by salmonella-tainted foods or norovirus, federal health officials report.
Salmonella-contaminated eggs alone accounted for 2,231 illnesses in 2009-2010, according to researchers from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention who set out to identify the specific pathogens responsible for widespread foodborne illnesses.
"CDC estimates that one in six Americans get sick from a foodborne illness each year," said lead author L. Hannah Gould, a senior epidemiologist at CDC's National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases.
More than 1,500 foodborne-disease outbreaks were reported in 2009-2010, involving nearly 29,500 illnesses, 1,200 hospitalizations and 23 deaths, according to the CDC.
Besides salmonella in eggs, common causes of outbreaks included E. coli O157 in beef and Campylobacter in unpasteurized dairy products. Besides salmonella-contaminated eggs, outbreaks were also traced to salmonella in sprouts and vegetables, such as tomatoes and peppers, the agency said.
More than 40 outbreaks resulted in product recalls, according to the Jan. 25 issue of the CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
However, outbreaks account for only 5 percent to 10 percent of foodborne illnesses, Gould said. And not all outbreaks get reported, she noted.
Both salmonella and norovirus, also called cruise-ship flu, cause serious gastrointestinal problems.
Dr. Marc Siegel, an associate professor of medicine at NYU Langone Medical Center in New York City, said foodborne illness is "epidemic" in the United States. "There is a lack of scrutiny of food products," he said.
Contamination can occur at any step along the food chain, from farm to fork, Gould said.
"Everyone has a role in preventing foodborne illness, starting at the farm to processing to restaurants and at the home," Gould said.
"Most foodborne illness is preventable if people follow the right steps," she added. The keys to prevention include hand washing, proper storage and preparation. Clean foods, keep meat and produce separate and cook foods thoroughly, Gould said. Also, keep produce, meats, and eggs refrigerated.
Of more than 700 outbreaks attributed to a single source, 48 percent were traced to food eaten in a restaurant or deli, and 21 percent were caused by food eaten at home.
If you're eating out, Gould suggests checking the restaurant's health inspection score. "Don't eat there if the score is low," she said.
Siegel said much of the contamination occurs at the farm and in processing. Farming practices are to blame in many cases, he said.
Chickens are raised in their own feces, which is the source for most Salmonella, and cattle are fed grain, which makes their stomachs a breeding ground for E. coli, he said.
"If we improve the conditions chickens are raised in, and if we start feeding cows grass instead of grain, much of the initial contamination could be stopped," Siegel said.
More information: For more on foodborne illness, visit the U.S. National Library of Medicine.
Health News Copyright © 2013 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Editor's note: Ongoing coverage of the military commission hearing at Guantanamo is a collaboration between Truthout and Seton Hall University School of Law, Center for Policy and Research.
All this week, the motions hearings for the 9/11 detainees are proceeding before the military commission at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. While I will not endeavor to reiterate every argument on each motion, I do think it is important to take a more long-range look at the motions themselves (in several groupings), and to at least begin a discussion of the persistent and underlying questions that have plagued this commission seemingly from their inception: are they fair, or even capable of being fair? What would a fair process look like, and why does it matter so much?
As the parties spend the week – and likely, the next several years – debating these questions, the answers seem to lie in the procedural safeguards that the law promises those who are suspected or accused of a crime by the government. This promise of due process serves two masters. The first is the individual who is suspected or accused. The Constitution, and all the rights enshrined therein, persist even in the face of an all-powerful government. But due process serves each of us, as well. For the rest of society, the process afforded a defendant ensures that the ultimate result of the government's suspicions or accusations – which it pursues in all of our names – will be fair. The process legitimates the outcome. To paraphrase the parties themselves, justice is not any particular outcome; it is a method by which the outcome was achieved.
But, as always, the devil is the details. And for all the rhetorical flourish that each advocate and serving judge Army Col. James Pohl lend the commission as they seek to define the parameters of the process, it takes more than rhetoric to answer the underlying questions of what, if anything, can instill a sense of legitimacy in these proceedings. Still, we have to start somewhere, and I have grouped the motions and arguments into broad categories in an effort to start this conversation.
The Role of Defense Counsel
Several motions before the commission deal with complex questions surrounding the role of the defense counsel in these proceedings. Without delving into the minutiae of each, some general observations may serve to contextualize the descriptive narratives of these motions available in the broader media.
No one seems to doubt the vital role defense counsel play in these proceedings. A zealous advocate for the accused is a long-guarded tradition in the American adversarial process, and there seems to be a solid consensus that the lawyers representing the defendants in these proceedings are among the most skilled and dedicated available. But while counsel for the accused are outstanding lawyers, they have also been asked to do an impossible job. Their qualifications should not shield the reality that they are operating in a system that may well confound their ability to represent their clients. That they lend their names, their energies and – for some, it seems – their lives to fulfilling the role they accepted as defense counsel should not alone serve to suggest that the process is, or can be, fair, given the uphill battle they inevitably face. As counsel raise issues ranging from access to their clients to unhealthy working conditions, to requirements, to inform the prosecuting authority of witnesses and expected testimony, to the conundrum of classified materials (which I will discuss in a moment), the question looms whether the task set for the attorneys is simply impossible. These lawyers are operating in a system in which many of the most basic ground rules for the representation of their clients remain undefined. Formed by Congressional Act with no clear procedural lineage (although the government may beg to differ on this point), the commission is riddled with procedural anomalies and vacuums that cannot help but cast doubt on the legitimacy of the whole.
The Defendant's Role
Along with these unresolved questions about the role of defense counsel, the role of the defendants themselves hovers nearby. These defendants have made clear that they do not intend to go quietly to their fate. Instead, they have pushed to use available procedures as a platform to question the legitimacy of the commission and US foreign policy. While, on the first day of the hearings, they appeared far more compliant than at their arraignment in May, they continued to resist playing a defined or expected role in the process.
On Monday, Judge Pohl considered the question of whether or not the defendants could be compelled to appear in person before the commission. The defendants took the position that they should not be forced to appear in person for proceedings. They claimed that the right to be present at the proceedings was their own and therefore was capable of waiver. Somewhat surprisingly, the government took the position that the defendants could not absent themselves from the proceedings. Ultimately, Judge Pohl agreed to a procedure that would allow the defendants to voluntarily waive presence. In the following days, various defendants have availed themselves of this process and have not appeared.
This all may seem like a relatively minor issue – the question of whether a person, even a detainee, can opt out of his own trial. But a superficial analysis misses the underlying significance of the discussion. Entwined in this request not to be present is inevitably the question of why the defendants want to be absent in the first place. The answer to this question came from both defendants' counsel and the defendants themselves. Defense counsel argued that the process of being brought to the commission each day in restraints resurrected memories for the defendants of their own interrogation, capture and continued detention. While the commission forbids counsel from delving into details of this, public sources of information tell a story of prolonged and shocking torture and inhumane treatment. Given this reality, the defendants' reluctance to undergo even the transport to the commission does not seem surprising or even unreasonable.
The argument not made by counsel – though it seemed always present in the courtroom – came from the defendants' own sense of the process before them. Khalid Sheik Mohammed used the waiver colloquy to voice his belief that there is no justice in this court. Later, in the context of another motion, he asked to address the commission itself. When granted permission to speak, he admonished the judge to be wary of the government's over-invocation of national security interests to justify closing portions of the commission and trampling constitutional rights. He warned that national security has become too easy a justification for killing. Regardless of whether or not one agrees with his assessment of the government's claims of national security, the statement highlights a component of the defendants' story that seems to confound the commission. These defendants refuse to engage in the ordinary script of the criminal system. Instead, they resist, and so seek to remind the world of who they were and what is at stake. They were among the most feared of all men – those who claim they planned and, at least indirectly, engaged in a devastating act of terrorism that forever changed our nation's sense of security and itself. But they were also a group of men who had been held by their self-proclaimed enemy for nearly ten years awaiting trial. During that time, evidence against them was acquired through mechanisms reminiscent of the Spanish Inquisition.
Faced with trials in military commissions, KSM and his co-defendants chose to resist. In doing so, they bring to the surface the ugly realities of their circumstances and experiences that a "business as usual" hearing would be able to ignore. In their defense of resistance, they not only declined to recognize the authority of the court, but they call into question the legitimacy of a system that was already questionable. They seek to transform their criminal trials into a commentary on the system itself.
So here lies the irony: the very men who, according to the charges levied against them, sought to destroy the nation are using their trial to send a warning that the nation, in curtailing the judicial process in their cases, may have exposed itself to a more abstract but nonetheless real danger: the erosion of the Constitution itself.
From the question of whether the defendants could refuse to appear, the commission moved to the question of what they could wear when they did arrive. The major dispute was whether or not the commission should permit KSM to wear a camouflage vest. Defense counsel argued that KSM saw the vest as part of his uniform as a former mujahedeen fighter, and therefore critical to his defense, and, indeed, integral to his identity. The government opposed the motion, arguing, among other things, that KSM did not in fact wear a uniform. Ultimately, the commission ruled that KSM could wear the vest, but only, among other restrictions, if it was not the current uniform of any US military branch.
Again, this may seem like a small battle on a variety of levels, but it is deceptive in its simplicity. The discussion on the surface was about the vest KSM would wear to hearings, but underneath was a desire to redefine the terms of the case, the defense and the defendant's identity itself. If KSM shifts from the role of terrorist to solider, it could fundamentally alter our notion of either him or the crimes he allegedly masterminded. Before a civilian court, this might be a hard sell, but before a jury of military personnel, it might carry more weight.
The Classification Conundrum
This brings us to perhaps the most surreal portion of the hearings to date: the debate over classification. This is a muddled sphere, but here's the summary, as far as I can tell. No one seems to dispute that classified information will be used in this trial by both sides. What is in question is the very nature of that information and how it should be handled in a trial. There are some key points to address before launching into the larger constitutional issues:
Information is classified by various government agencies. Once this designation is assigned, it places limitations on who can have access to the information. Those with clearance to review classified information can do so, but will face sanctions if they disseminate the information to those without clearance (think, the general public or a defendant). The defense attorneys have clearance to review the classified information in connection with their representation of their clients.
Here's where it gets tricky.The defendants were exposed to classified information during their interrogations, insofar as they know the methods the CIA (or some other agency) used to attempt to extract information from them after they were captured. The government is claiming, however, that this information is classified. Even writing this, it seems like such an odd configuration. The defendants did not choose to be exposed to the top secret CIA interrogation methods. Given a choice, each would likely have preferred to stay blissfully ignorant of methods of information extraction like waterboarding or sleep deprivation. But they were exposed to it. Now the memories of those experiences are tied part and parcel to their defenses, yet their ability to present this defense is restricted. Though it appears that they could present the information, it would be only in a closed hearing. This means that the public, in whose name the commission was created in the first place, would never hear the defendants' explanation of what happened to them at the hands of our government.
This is no small thing. The American trial system is a public one. On any given day, any of us can enter a courtroom and observe the machinations of the criminal justice system. As entertaining as court can be, this ability to observe is important for other reasons. Trials serve functions beyond just determining the guilt of a defendant. They are a window into our government. They create an opportunity for competing narratives to be heard by the community around them. They allow each of us to hold the law side by side with our own life experiences and decide if it is truly reflective of our will. In all this, there are not only amazing moments in the democratic process, but courts also offer a sense that in all its formalism, the system serves a valuable function in its transparency and the legitimacy such transparency creates.
Closing a trial undermines this. For this reason, the presumption in the system is one of an open public system. The Supreme Court has time and again reaffirmed the right to the public trial as one enjoyed not only by the accused, but also by the citizenry. Closing a trial is an extreme and rare occurrence. It can be done only after a court engages in a weighing test that favors an open trial.
The military commission and the classified information that forms the evidence in the case, therefore, present a puzzling conundrum. On the most basic level, the presumption of the commission is closure. Much has been written about the so-called 40-second delay between the live proceeding and the spectator galleries in Guantanamo Bay or one of the remote viewing sites. This delay allows the court security officer (CSO) to censor classified information if it inadvertently, or purposefully, gets raised in a live proceeding. The surreal nature of this delay for those viewing the proceedings has been much discussed. More significantly, however, its ultimate purpose is to keep the hearing closed to the public unless and until the CSO opens it. Nowhere was this reality more apparent than, when in response to concerns voiced by Judge Pohl over KSM's desire to speak, a representative of the government assured the commission that if there was a problem, the 40-second delay would ensure that the public never heard KSM's words.
The parties and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), as intervenor, spent the last two days arguing over classification mechanisms, protective orders and the notion of an open trial. In deciding these issues, Judge Pohl is faced with a difficult conundrum. If he adopts the government's proposed order for the treatment of classified information, he will have engaged in a sweeping brand of prior restraint that will undermine much of the transparency that Gen. Mark Martins has promoted in his time as chief prosecutor. But if he doesn't, he is faced with choices that will position the case in untested waters indeed.
For example, if he finds that the defendants' accounts of their own torture and interrogation do not meet the definition of classified information, would he nonetheless decide to close the hearings in which the defendants testified to their treatment because of some compelling government interest that likely fueled the classification in the first place? What sort of test would he require from the government to demonstrate that interest, and would this hearing itself have to be closed, given that the compelling interest may involve other classified materials? Even if the defendants' memories are not classified when spoken of by the defendants themselves, would they become classified if spoken of by defense counsel who do not "enjoy" the firsthand perspective of these memories their clients do?
In the alternative, if the statements regarding their own experiences are classified, can this truly prevent the defendants from speaking of them? The defendants, after all, have no security clearance – unless that is also a classified matter that I, as a member of the uncleared public, have not been made privy to. The list of bizarre permutations goes on and on.
What Makes the Process Fair?
At the end of the day, these issues are deceptively simple while posing complex questions about the legitimacy of the proceedings. As the commission prepares to take up the question of whether or not the Constitution applies to it, the question hovers: what would it take to instill confidence in these proceedings? For some, the likely answer lies at the poles – either it is already legitimate, or it is not and never can be. For Judge Pohl and the participants, the question becomes what procedure will suffice, and what procedure is surplusage. No matter the outcome, it matters.
How these trials are conducted is a reflection of our values as a people and a country. No matter how any one of us feels about the experiences of 9/11 or these individual defendants, our humanity and our democracy require that we hold fast to those values that have stood us well through revolution, civil war, two world wars and countless other challenges. We, as a nation, may be more than the sum of our liberties and rights, but at the end of the day, we are a nation because of them. And in our fight to find the process due these defendants, we set the standard for ourselves. Will we recognize the value of dignity and humanity even in those we may ultimately execute? Or will we forgo process for expediency? Will we sacrifice who we are in the name of national security, or will we fulfill our role as citizens and challenge the three branches of government to account for restrictions on liberty?


text:
In the wake of President Obama's "hot mike" admission to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that "after my election, I have more flexibility" to make concessions on missile defense, conservatives are insisting that once sworn in for a second term, Obama will unveil the Michael Moore–esque foreign policy he's been concealing these last three years. Especially on Israel.
"Can you imagine the kind of pressure a reelected Obama will put on Israel," declared Charles Krauthammer in his syndicated column. "The answer to the president's new posture toward Israel lies in his words to President Medvedev," added Rabbi Shmuley Boteach in The Huffington Post. The president "cannot be trusted to refrain from exerting undue pressure on Israel after the election."
A word to my right-wing friends: stop worrying. I'd be pleased if President Obama spent his second term pushing Benjamin Netanyahu to negotiate seriously toward a two-state solution along the lines that Bill Clinton laid out in December 2000. (Though doing so would also require strong security guarantees to the Jewish state and pressure on the Palestinians to compromise on the right of return). But it's not likely to happen, for three main reasons.
The first is that politics don't end when a president wins reelection. Second-term presidents are still leaders of their party, subject to pressure from their colleagues in Congress. And they still realize that if they pick fights that weaken them politically, it limits their ability to accomplish other things.
This is especially true when it comes to Israel, the most politically fraught of American foreign-policy issues. Congress almost always resists presidential pressure on an Israeli government. It was Congress, after all, that helped keep Obama from pushing Benjamin Netanyahu hard on a settlement freeze in 2009 and that led Obama to pull back from his confrontation with Netanyahu after the Israeli government embarrassed the White House by announcing new building in East Jerusalem in March 2010.
What influenced Obama in those first two years wasn't concern about his own reelection prospects as much as concern that he'd hurt Democratic fundraising for the 2010 midterms and undermine his broader congressional agenda. Those same concerns will weigh on White House officials in 2013 and 2014. In fact, with Republicans likely still in control of the House, congressional pressure may be even greater at the beginning of Obama's second term than it was at the beginning of his first.
Look at the history of second-term presidential policymaking toward Israel. Bill Clinton and George W. Bush did commit themselves more heavily to the peace process once reelected, but in neither case did they throw political caution to the wind. During Netanyahu's first stint as prime minister during the late 1990s, in fact, he proved quite effective in allying with American Jewish organizations and the Republican Congress to frustrate Clinton's efforts to push him toward a Palestinian state. Although Clinton got Netanyahu to sign the 1998 Wye River Memorandum, for instance, he could not make Netanyahu implement it.
Which brings us to the second reason Obama is unlikely to be substantially more aggressive in his second term than in his first: the nature of the Israeli government he's likely to face. Right now at least, it seems probable that Obama will be dealing with the same Israeli prime minister he's been dealing with since 2009, a man who is happiest when he doesn't have to discuss the Palestinian issue at all. And he's also likely to confront Palestinian leaders more deferential to Palestinian public opinion than in the past, which may constrain their ability to make concessions. It's one thing to take political risks when you think there's a decent chance of success. It's another to stir up a hornet's nest in Washington when conditions aren't ripe on the ground.
So which foreign-policy issue will Obama devote himself to in a second term? My guess is Asia. For one thing, he has more room for political maneuver. For another, it gives him the chance to be, in former secretary of state Dean Acheson's famous phrase, "present at the creation." Ever since the Cold War's end, presidents have yearned to outline the vision that would define a new age. George H.W. Bush tried new world order. Bill Clinton mused about globalization. George W. Bush endlessly compared the doctrine of "preemption" he outlined after Sept. 11 to the containment policy Acheson and Harry Truman laid out at the dawn of the Cold War.
With foreign-policy experts increasingly sanguine about the threat from jihadist terror and the U.S. withdrawing its ground presence from the Middle East and the Hindu Kush, the obvious place for Obama to establish his legacy is East Asia. When historians look back at Washington foreign-policy debates in the early years of the 21st century, they'll likely be puzzled by how underdeveloped public discussion about Asia was. It's been clear since the 1990s that China would be America's primary great-power competitor, and yet no president has defined for the American people a strategy for both cooperating with China to solve global problems and preserving U.S. influence in the Pacific. The president who does will have laid the groundwork for American foreign policy for decades to come, just as Truman did when he dedicated the United States to containing the Soviet Union.
As a lover of Israel who worries about its current path, I hope I'm wrong. I hope President Obama takes political risks to keep the two-state solution alive. But Obama's an unsentimental guy. The unsentimental path is to focus on Asia, which is safer politically and historically, the bigger prize. And to let Benjamin Netanyahu make of Israel's future what he will.


text:
Biocomplexity Resources
Complex Systems
Online resources in this list address topics such as polymers, complex fluids, genetics, modeling, and complex system analysis. Many complex systems projects are multi-disciplinary, involving fields such as biology, mathematics, computer science, sociology, psychology, engineering, business and natural resources management.
- CIPEC Biocomplexity Project Overview. This biocomplexity project concentrates on using several types of mathematical modeling to inventory and predict land use / land cover patterns. Some of the modeling approaches that will be analyzed are econometric models, systems dynamics models, cellular automata models, and theoretical agent-based models. The goal of this research is to compare the strengths, weaknesses, and unique advantages of several modeling approaches. (more info)
- Centre for Research on Simulation in the Social Sciences. This center is dedicated to using computer models for monitoring and predicting distribution of sociological conditions. This site contains links to associated periodicals, textbooks, and web site resources. Other services of this site include reports on current research projects conducted by CRESS personnel and a list of modeling software available. (more info)
- Cormas - Natural Resource and Multi-Agent Simulations. Cormas is a programming environment dedicated to the creation of multi-agent systems as it applies to natural resources management. This site is devoted to the applied modeling of relationships between societies and their environment. These programs concentrate on developing simulation models that identify relationships between individuals and groups that jointly use common resources. (more info)
- InterJournal. InterJournal is a refereed World Wide Web-based Internet journal that covers a variety of topics, including complex systems, polymers, complex fluids, and genetics. The central journal database consists of abstracts, comments and relevant manuscript information including pointers to the internet address of the original article. These articles are available for the user to browse under general subject headings or can be searched using keywords. (more info)
- New England Complex Systems Institute. This is an independent educational and research institution dedicated to advancing the study of complex systems. New concepts and methodologies regarding these systems are affecting all fields of science and engineering, and are being applied to technology, business and even social policy. This website provides information at various comprehension levels and thus can be utilized by newcomers and experts of complex system analysis. The sections included on this website include research, education, activities, and news. (more info)
- Syllabus of Readings for Complex Adaptive Systems and Agent-Based Computational Economics. This site is a source of readings for the weekly interdisciplinary Complex Adaptive Systems Workshop at Iowa State University. Many natural systems, and increasingly many artificial systems as well, are characterized by apparently complex behaviors that arise as the result of nonlinear spatio-temporal interactions among a large number of components or subsystems. Examples of such natural systems include immune systems, nervous systems, multicellular organisms, ecologies, and insect societies. (more info)
- The Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation. This is the homepage for the quarterly journal known as JASSS, which is "an inter-disciplinary journal for the exploration and understanding of social processes by means of computer simulation". Users of this website can browse the articles of past or current issues as well as performing basic or advanced searches for specific topics. The articles are complete and are shown with color graphics and even animated visual elements. (more info)
- The Santa Fe Institute - Homepage. The Santa Fe Institute seeks to catalyze new collaborative, multidisciplinary projects that break down the barriers between the traditional disciplines, to spread its ideas and methodologies to other individuals and encourage the practical applications of its results. The information on this site includes business networking, educational opportunities, employment opportunities, event calendar, library services, and reports on publications and research. (more info)
- The Society for Chaos Theory in Psychology & Life Sciences. An international forum bringing together researchers, theoreticians, and practitioners interested in applying dynamical systems theory, far-from-equilibrium thermodynamics, self-organization, neural nets, fractals cellular automata, and related forms of chaos, catastrophes, bifurcations, nonlinear dynamics, and complexity theories to psychology and the life sciences. This website includes information that explains the basics of the chaos theory and provided tutorials to help explain this concept. In addition, the website includes conference reports, journal articles, and a data library. (more info)


text:
M42 - The Great Orion Nebula
M42 - The Great Orion Nebula
Messier 42 is a starforming Nebula M42 (NGC 1976), an emission and reflection nebula, with Open Star Cluster, in the constellation Orion.
Right Ascension 05 : 35.4 (h:m)
Declination -05 : 27 (deg:m)
Distance 1.3 (kly)
Visual Brightness 4.0 (mag)
Apparent Dimension 85x60 (arc min)
Taken with TEC 140mm f/7.0. Canon 20D with in-camera noise reduction at 800iso. 10x2min images registered and stacked in ImagesPlus and tweaked in PS.
Temperature was about 55 degrees and dropping.
Excerpt from seds.org:
Of the hundreds or possibly thousands of images I've taken of this object, this image is by far the best quality and detail of them all to date.
The Orion Nebula was possibly discovered 1610 by Nicholas-Claude Fabri de Peiresc.
Independently found by Johann Baptist Cysatus in 1611.
Trapezium cluster found as multiple star by Galileo Galilei in 1617.
The Orion Nebula Messier 42 (M42, NGC 1976) is the brightest starforming, and the brightest diffuse nebula in the sky, and also one of the brightest deepsky objects at all. Shining with the brightness of a star of 4th magnitude, it is visible to the naked eye under moderately good conditions, and rewarding in telescopes of every size, from the smallest glasses to the greatest Earth-bound observatories as well as outer-space observatories like the Hubble Space Telescope. It is also a big object in the sky, extending to over 1 degree in diameter, thus covering more than four times the area of the Full Moon.
As it is so well visible to the naked eye, one may wonder why its nebulous nature was apparently not documented before the invention of the telescope. Only some Central American, Mayan folk tales may be interpreted in a way suggesting that these native Americans may have known of this nebulous object in the sky (O'Dell 2003, p. 3). However, the brightest stars within the nebula were noted early and cataloged as one bright star of about fifth magnitude: In about 130 AD, Ptolemy included it in his catalog, as did Tycho Brahe in the late 16th century, and Johann Bayer in 1603 - the latter cataloging it as Theta Orion in his Uranometria. In 1610, Galileo detected a number of faint stars when first looking at this region with his telescope, but didn't note the nebula. Some years later, on February 4, 1617, Galileo took a closer look at the main star, Theta1, and found it to be triple, at his magnification of 27 or 28x, again not perceiving the nebula.
The Orion Nebula was probably discovered in late 1610, when Nicholas-Claude Fabri de Peiresc (1580-1637), a French lawyer, turned his telescope to this region of the sky, and reported of a cloudy nebulosity. This sighting, however, was not published, but only reported in Peiresc's personal documents and brought up only by Bigourdan (1916). It was independently found in 1611 by the Jesuit astronomer Johann Baptist Cysatus (1588-1657) of Lucerne who compared it to a comet he had observed in the year 1618 (Cysat 1619). This work also did not get widely known, and opnly turned up by Rudolf Wolf in 1854 (Wolf 1854). The first known drawing of the Orion nebula was created by Giovanni Batista Hodierna, who included three stars; these are probably Theta1 as well as Theta2A and Theta2B. All these discoveries apparently got lost for some time, so that eventually Christian Huygens was longly credited for his independent rediscovery in 1656, e.g. by Edmond Halley who included it in his list of six "nebulae" (Halley 1716), by Jean-Jacques d'Ortous de Mairan in his nebulae descriptions, by Philippe Loys de Chéseaux in his list, by Guillaume Legentil in his review, and by Charles Messier when he added it to his catalog on March 4, 1769.
It is somewhat unusual that the Orion Nebula has found its way into Messier's list, together with the bright star clusters Praesepe M44 and the Pleiades M45; Charles Messier usually only included fainter objects which could be easily taken for comets. But in this one night of March 4, 1769, he determined the positions of these wellknown objects, (to say it with Owen Gingerich) `evidently adding these as "frosting" to bring the list to 45', for its first publication in the Memoires de l'Academie for 1771 (published 1774). One may speculate why he prefered a list of 45 entries over one with 41; a possible reason may be that he wanted to beat Lacaille's 1755 catalog of southern objects, which had 42 entries. Messier measured an extra position for a smaller northeastern portion, reported by Jean-Jacques d'Ortous de Mairan previously in 1731 as a separate nebula, which therefore since has the extra Messier number: M43.
As the drawings of the Orion Nebula known to him did so poorly represent Messier's impression, he created a fine drawing of this Object, in order to "help to recognize it again, provided that it is not subject to change with time" (as Messier states in the introduction to his catalog).
This gorgeous object continued to influence astronomers since. It was the first deepsky observation by William Herschel with a self-constructed reflecting telescope of 6-foot focal length in 1774. In 1789, with some prophetic touch, he described his observations with his 48-inch aperture, 40-foot FL scope as "an unformed fiery mist, the chaotic material of future suns."
The gaseous nature of the Orion Nebula was revealed in 1865 with the help of spectroscopy by William Huggins. On September 30, 1880, M42 was the first nebula to be successfully photographed, by Henry Draper. Consequently, on March 14, 1882, Henry Draper obtained a second, better, deeper, and more detailed photograph of the Orion Nebula, a 137-minutes exposure, which also clearly shows M43.
The Orion Nebula is located at a distance of about 1,600 (or perhaps 1,500) light-years. At this distance, its angular diameter of 66x60 arc minutes corresponds to a linear diameter of about 30 light-years. On its northern end, the nebula is devided by a conspicuous dark lane, well visible in our photograph. This image was obtained David Malin of the Anglo-Australian Observatory. More information on this image is available.
The detached northeastern portion is the nebula M43 first reported by De Mairan, and listed as a separate nebula by Charles Messier. Like the main nebula M42, this is an emission nebula, shining by the light emitted from its atoms, after being excited by the high-energy radiation of massive, very hot young stars within it. In the very neighborhood, to the north, there are also fainter reflection nebulae, partially reflecting the light of the Great Nebula. They were not notable for Charles Messier, but labeled later with the NGC numbers 1973, 1975, and 1977: NGC 1977 had been found by William Herschel (his H V.30), while NGC 1973 and NGC 1975 are discoveries of Heinrich Ludwig d'Arrest. Here we have a collection of more images of M42, M43, and more images of M42, M43 and NGC 1973-5-7.
The Orion Nebula is the brightest and most conspicuous part of a much larger cloud of gas and dust which extends over 10 degrees well over half the constellation Orion. The linear extend of this giant cloud is well several hundreds of light-years. It can be visualized by long exposure photos (see e.g. Burnham) and contains, besides the Orion nebula near its center, the following objects, often famous on their own: Barnard's Loop, the Horsehead Nebula region (also containing NGC 2024 = Orion B), and the reflection nebulae around M78. Already impressive in deep visible light photographs, the Orion Cloud is particularly gorgeous in the infrared light.
M42 itself is apparently a very turbulent cloud of gas and dust, full of interesting details, which Charles Robert O'Dell has compared to the rich topography of the Grand Canyon in his HST photo caption. The major features got names on their own by various observers: The dark nebula forming the lane separating M43 from the main nebula extends well into the latter, forming a feature generally nicknamed the "Fish's Mouth". The bright regions to both sides are called the "wings", while at the end of the Fish's Mouth there's a cluster of newly formed stars, called the "Trapezium cluster". The wing extension to the south on the east (lower left in our image) is called "The Sword", the bright nebulosity below the Trapezium "The Thrust" and the fainter western (right) extension "The Sail". Here we have a small collection of Images of detail in M42, including another nomenclature for the brightest region in the nebula by historic visual observers, as well as a pictorial study of the Trapezium cluster and region by Lowell Observatory images.
The Trapezium Cluster is among the very youngest (open) clusters known, with new stars still forming in this region. As stated above, the cluster was first depicted as triple star on February 4, 1617 by Galileo, who was not aware of the nebula. Galileo's discovery did not get widely known, so that Christian Huygens independently rediscovered the triple star in 1656 together with the Orion Nebula. These first three stars are often labelled "A", "C", and "D". It may be of interest that in both cases, the Trapezium, or Theta1 Orionis, was second to only one other double star: Mizar (Zeta Ursae Majoris). The fourth Trapezium star, "B", was first found by Abbe Jean Picard in 1673 (according to De Mairan), and independently by Huygens in 1684. The fifth cluster star "E" was discovered by Friedrich Georg Wilhelm Struve in 1826 with a 9.5-inch refractor in Dorpat, the sixth, "F", by John Herschel on February 13, 1830, the seventh, "G", by Alvan Clark in 1888 when testing his 36-inch refractor of Lick Observatory, and the eighth, "H" by E.E. Barnard later in 1888 with the same telescope. Barnard later found that "H" is double, with two 16th-magnitude components. Today we know that stars "A" and "B" are both eclipsing variables of Algol type: A (also known as V1016 Ori) was discovered in 1975 to vary between magnitudes 6.73 and 7.53 with a period of 65.4325 days, while B (also cataloged as BM Ori) varies between mag 7.95 and 8.52 in 6.4705 days, and is always the faintest of the four Trapezium stars.
The past decades of research on the Orion Nebula have revealed that the visible nebula, M42, the blister of hot, photo-ionized, luminous gas around hot Trapezium stars, is only a thin layer lying on the surface of a much larger cloud of denser matter, the Orion Molecular Cloud 1 (OMC 1). We happen to see this structure approximately face-on. The idea for this model came originally from Münch (1958) and Wurm (1961) and fully elaborated by several authors around 1973-1974 (Zuckerman (1973), Balick et.al. (1974)), soon supported by evidence, and is still studied in detail, see e.g. O'Dell (2001) for a recent review, and references cited therein. The San Diego Supercomputer Center (SDSC)'s VisLab has created a 3-dimensional visualization of the Orion Nebula based on this model (see side-view model image of M42).
The Orion nebula was, continuously since the early times before its refurbishment, a preferred target for the Hubble Space Telescope. One major discovery was that of protoplanetary disks, the socalled "Proplyds" (planetary systems in formation) in these HST images of M42 (these images were used for an animation simulating the approach to a protostar [caption]). HST images of November 1995 have revealed further insight into the complicated process taking place in this "star factory". Hubble investigations of January 1997 have revealed interesting interactions of the young hot Trapezium cluster stars with the protoplanetary disks: Their violent radiation tends to destruct the discs, so that the lower-mass stars forming here may loose the material needed to form planetary systems.
In 1982, a symposium solely devoted to the Orion Nebula was held to celebrate New York University#s Sesquicentennial, and to honor the one hundredth anniversary of the first photograph of the Orion Nebula taken by Henry Draper on September 30, 1880 (Glassgold et.al. 1982).
An excellent review of the astrophysics of the Orion Nebula is provided in 2003 with the superb monograph by Charles Robert O'Dell (O'Dell 2003), who summarizes the knowledge of that time, including HST research.
It is very easy to find the Orion Nebula, as it surrounds the Theta Orionis multiple star or cluster, seen to the naked eye in the middle of the sword of Orion. Already under fairly good conditions, the nebula itself can be glimpsed with the naked eye as a faint nebulosity around this star.
The Orion Nebula is also one of the easiest and most rewarding target for amateur astrophotographers.


text:
The Examined Life
More than words
Rather than threaten our Christian faith, exploring the language and spiritual practices of other religious traditions may instead make us better Catholics.
The bishop of Bruden in the Netherlands, Martinus Petrus Maria Muskens (who goes by "Tiny"), shocked the religious world as summer ended with a daring suggestion. "Allah is a very beautiful word for God. Shouldn't we all say that from now on we will call God Allah?" he asked in an interview on Dutch television, according to the Associated Press. Bishop Tiny's suggestion was not generally welcomed among Western Christians, despite the fact that Allah is used among Arab-speaking Christians in places such as Indonesia, where it is simply the equivalent of God in the local language.
So apparently outlandish was Muskens' proposal that even the secular media questioned his credibility. The Associated Press referred to him as "a Dutch Catholic bishop who once said the hungry were entitled to steal bread and advocated condom use to prevent AIDS." (The AP is evidently unaware that theological radical Thomas Aquinas said the same about poor people.) LifesiteNews.com, a Canada-based prolife website, put its ad hominem attack right in the headline, calling Muskens a "condom-promoting Catholic bishop."
Editorialized news coverage aside, the bishop's suggestion hardly qualifies him for psychiatric care. On one level, it is no more ridiculous for Catholics to call God Allah than to call God God or Dios or Dieu or any other linguistic equivalent.
But consciously choosing to address God the way another monotheistic faith does could also be a good strategy for interreligious understanding. We Catholics have no problem with Muslim belief in the absolute unity of God, and we could certainly join in a prayer addressed to Allah, as long as its language did not somehow call into question elements of Christian faith. Doing so may actually open us more fully to the divine mystery, allowing us to appreciate elements of faith that we share with Islam—the absolute transcendence of God, for example—more deeply.
There is certainly precedent for this approach to interreligious practice in Christianity's conversation with Judaism. Christians have learned to join Jewish prayer and participate with Jewish permission in services on the High Holy Days and Passover. Jewish rabbis have even been known to lead Seder services for Catholics in church basements. Even in the liturgy we Catholics sometimes address God as Yahweh in psalms and other texts, a name drawn from the common heritage of the Jewish Torah, prophets, and writings, which Christians call the Old Testament. Catholics have adopted and adapted spiritual practices from Asia as well, from Hindu yoga to Buddhist meditation, to deepen their spiritual lives while still affirming the Christian creed.
Some object that this kind of cross-practice may lead to syncretism, a blending and dilution of unique religious traditions rather than a growth in understanding. But when done carefully, this risk is outweighed by the potential to ease the religious share of the tension that keeps our world on a knife's edge. Like it or not, religious pluralism is not going away—just ask the world's billion Muslims or hundreds of millions of Hindus and Buddhists. Fasting with Muslims for peace, almsgiving with Jews for justice, and meditating with Buddhists for growth in compassion at least can't hurt.
Last month a longtime friend took "refuge vows" at a Buddhist center here in Chicago, the loose equivalent of initiation for Buddhists. In the ceremony my friend took the Buddha as his model for action, the Buddha's teaching (dharma) as his way of life, and the sangha or local community as his support. I was happy to join him as he made this spiritual commitment, yet a bit sad as well. After all, this friend of mine had once been a Catholic. At the same time I knew that he hadn't left the church primarily because of its failure but because he found in Buddhism the guidance and sustenance that I find in my Catholic faith.
I do not share my friend's Buddhist commitment, but I have found myself enlightened by his search for compassion, his quest for silence in meditation, and his detachment from what draws him away from his authentic self—all things that I seek in my own spiritual life. As I continue to walk with him on his Buddhist journey, I expect to find that I will become a better disciple of Jesus myself.
Bryan Cones is associate editor of U.S. Catholic. This article appeared in the November 2007 (Volume 72, Number 11; page 8) issue of U.S. Catholic.


text:
The Academy Awards are tomorrow and, as you know, Wes Anderson's The Grand Budapest Hotel has 9 nominations. Even when it's not the movie that everyone expect to win (Birdman and Boyhood are the titles that sound mostly as the winners), remember that it won at the Writers Guild Awards and 5 BAFTAs (Make Up & Hair, Original Music, Original Screenplay, Costume Design and Production Design) which it could mean that the movie is going to have a good night, even if it doesn't win in the main cathegory.
Why he deserves to win? I think the main reason is that he has always been faithful to his style. Even when his movies have been as much loved as hated by people, he never changed. The Grand Budapest Hotel is a 100% Wes Anderson movie and the people couldn't help fall inlove with it and that's why, even when it is one of the earliest released of the nominated movies, it is one of the most nominated and celebrated.
Surprise after the jump!
Ephemeris: On this day in 1996, Bottle Rocket was released in theatres.


text:
Note: The following does not represent the opinion of Mark McKinnon. He merely had the good grace to allow me a forum in which to post it after it was respectfully declined (for obvious reasons) by the SANS Institute's Forensic Blog. I wrote it chiefly because I hadn't seen anything recently, or as I recall, ever, that so much as acknowledged any downside to certification. I respect the pro-certification viewpoint, but I do disagree with it. And so, without further ado...
Certifications are Evil
by John McCash
Folks, this is an opinion piece, and it's going to be a controversial one. Some of you started composing a scathing rebuttal to it as soon as you read the title. Normally I restrict myself to what I hope are useful technical tidbits, but like most of you out there, I'm a forensic practitioner, and I have little patience for time sinks which provide no benefit (no I'm not including the training in that category, save your flames for the end). I've always begrudged the time commitment (over and above what's required to actually take the training and learn the included material) required to attain certifications, despite which I'm in possession of five, soon to be six, not counting my master's degree, so I like to think I speak from some degree of experience.
I do understand the arguments used by the proponents of certification. In essence, they allow people who have no understanding of a technical discipline to discriminate between other people who do and don't have that understanding. At least that's what they're supposed to do. Let me list two of the most egregious counterexamples that I have found in my own personal experience (with no disrespect intended to either Microsoft or the International Information Systems Security Certification Consortium). I have met, in my career, an extraordinarily large number of clueless CISSPs and MCSEs. These are people who were apparently able to pass the test, but who were unable to, respectively, secure or administer their way out of wet paper bags. To state it in more general/inflammatory terms, one problem with certifications is the number of idiots who are in possession of them. On the flip side of this, I personally oversaw the hiring of a system administrator back in 1996 who had nothing but a High School Diploma and a clue. I still work with him on occasion, and his hiring was one of the smartest decisions I ever made.
One logical response to this issue is simply to make certifications more difficult to get, but there we run into a second fundamental problem. When a certification raises its difficulty in order to exclude a certain percentage of unqualified people, they also exclude a certain percentage of qualified people. As the difficulty raises more and more, the incremental number of unqualified people being excluded gets smaller, and the incremental number of qualified people being excluded becomes larger. The amount of work required in order to to pass increases substantially as well. Qualified people get excluded for several reasons. For one, the more difficult a certification, the more training is typically required before attempting the exam. One forensic certification I heard about last week, the one which finally prompted me to write this posting, requires six months of training and six exams. That's a tremendous amount of time committed to obtaining a fancy certificate and some alphabet soup to put on your resume. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that training is useless. But what do you do if you're already in possession of 75% of the knowledge this training is intended to pass on? It's in the financial interest of the certification providers to make it more difficult to pass the certification if you haven't attended their custom-designed training program. Review guides may be available, but typically cover more material than the certification vendor's training, without the subtle emphasis often provided by that training. The practical upshot of this is that an individual who may know 75% of the material on the exam off the top of his head, substantially better than a graduate of the certification course will be (probably) after six months or so, may still have to complete a long and expensive training course just to get to a point where he can reliably pass the certification exam. For many of us, it's simply not worth it. We resign ourselves to being filtered out because we don't have the requisite alphabet soup, even though we're otherwise qualified.
You'd think that at some point, an exam would filter out all the idiots, but that's much harder than you'd think. That's why IQ tests have fallen out of vogue, and why an actual interview is still the best way to select a new employee. This brings me to the third reason certifications, or more specifically certification exams are bad. Many standardized tests consist of simple regurgitation of facts. They don't require that the subject really be able to think, just memorize. Personally, I believe that any idiot can pass such a test if they put sufficient time into preparation. It's possible to design questions to test problem solving ability, but it's difficult. One tactic that's often resorted to, and this is a personal hot button of mine, is to provide the subject limited information, allow him to assume the rest, and make him pick the 'most reasonable' or 'best' solution from the list. The problem with this occurs when the test subject is smarter or knows more than the individual who designed the question. I personally have run into this several times on various certification exams (I got a couple of the questions changed), and I find it intensely frustrating.
Finally, certifications are bad because they provide lazy people with a tool that can be easily misused. Rather than read 100 resumes to determine the 15 most qualified for a particular position (which he may lack the expertise to do anyway), an HR person can simply filter out all those lacking a specific certification. If this still results in a number of resumes that is too large, he can filter on another certification. This sort of data reduction can easily remove more qualified people than unqualified. In my opinion, it's better to pass all 100 resumes down to the hiring manager.
Certifications are bad for hiring managers, because they reduce their pool of qualified candidates, and they're bad for the candidates, because they enable those candidates' resumes to be filtered out before the manager sees them. In the end, they provide the most benefit to the vendors who provide them and their associated training, and to HR organizations, who are able to get by with fewer and less expert people.
Once a certification is accepted as required in a certain area, this fact can be used by people who lack training in that area to obtain it. The downside of this is that people who are already qualified sometimes must forgo more advanced training to take training just to get the certification. I'm not suggesting they don't learn anything in this training, but typically it will be much less than they could have learned had they been able to attend training of their choice.
So, you might ask, what's the alternative? Isn't there some other low-overhead way to reliably tell if a candidate knows anything about a given specialty without actually reading his resume or interviewing him? Well, I have a suggestion. Maybe somebody out there can make it work. It's based on word of mouth, and the PGP web of trust. Basically, there are a number of people who's word I trust if they say somebody has a clue. If everybody had one or more PGP keys with a comment that said "I am an expert in X", then people could sign that key, and the subject could publish the result. If Rob Lee, Ed Skoudis, & Josh Wright all say I'm an Uber Geek (and I'd like to think they might), I tend to think most people would buy into it. Maybe we could call this the web of cluefulness.
As always, please feel free to leave commentary if you liked this article or want to call me on the carpet for some inaccuracy.
Let the flames commence!


text:
"Godzilla vs. Kong" Blu-Ray Review: Monster movie is a big-budget spectacle
By John Hanlon
Newly released on Blu-Ray, Godzilla vs. Kong promises a showdown between the two titans. Even the title card suggests that this is a cage match, a wrestling battle between two worthy adversaries. Arriving after a series of recent films that introduced each of the title characters to a new generation, this new film delivers on its premise of a major brawl even though it sometimes stumbles along the way.
In the last decade, films like Kong: Skull Island (2017) to Godzilla (2014) and its sequel Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019) set the stage for their showdown here. As Godzilla vs. Kong begins, Godzilla remains in the ocean — after heroically saving civilization — while Kong lives locked in a preserve, unable to venture out. While a conflict is inevitable between the two, it's fitting that the story begins by showing the dichotomy between one titan who roams free and is celebrated throughout the world while the other is secluded and locked in a cage.
When an opportunity arises to free Kong and return him to the Hollow Earth, the rumored birthplace of the titans, caretaker Ilene Andrews (Rebecca Hall) agrees to help transport him. Alongside the scientist's deaf daughter Jia (Kaylee Hottle) and a reclusive scientist named Nathan Lind (Alexander Skarsgård), Andrews hopes to move Kong to this new location without alerting his ancient enemy, Godzilla.
In a separate storyline, Godzilla emerges from the ocean and attacks an Apex scientific facility, leading to questions about his intentions. Madison Russell (Millie Bobby Brown) wants the answers to those questions and recruits conspiracy theorist Bernie Hayes (Brian Tyree Henry) and her friend Josh Valentine (Julian Dennison) to investigate the facility, which is run by megalomaniac Walter Simmons (Demian Bichir).
The opening scenes reintroduce the two titans while also introducing or re-introducing some of the main human characters. While many of the actors are new to the franchise, Millie Bobby Brown and Kyle Chandler (who only appears briefly) return as their King of the Monsters characters.
Of course, the feature exists to pit the two major titans against each other and there are plenty of sequences that do just that. Director Adam Wingard — better known for horror films on a much-smaller scale like You're Next (2011) and The Guest (2014) — ably manages to bring a few memorable fight scenes to life. The first major battle here takes place in the middle of the ocean and even though the action scenes sometimes lack a cohesive flow, there are a few great shots and memorable moments here that capture the intensity of the battle and the repercussions of the fight. Wingard does more than show the two punching each other, however. He shows how the titans are affected by their hits and how they suffer the consequences of their injuries.
The screenplay by Eric Pearson and Max Borenstein also helps serve the story well, even though there are a few one-dimensional figures littered about. The script allows characters like Jia to develop a real and lasting relationship with Kong and there's a beautiful dynamic between the little girl and the large gorilla. While building on its recent predecessors and appreciating the work done by those filmmakers, this story also includes references and characters that were established alongside these characters long ago.
The third act brings many of the human characters together in one location and also sets up a major battle between the two titans and a new enemy. The climax is truly a spectacle that fulfills the promise of the movie itself and offers the all-out spectacle that viewers were promised with a film like this.
Although some of the story elements are familiar and only superficially satisfying (like the subplot about Hayes' conspiracy theories), the screenplay does succeed in presenting a few solid relationships along the way. Ultimately though, it's the big, larger-than-life, sequences that makes this feature worth watching, especially for those already interested in this cinematic universe.
Blu-Ray Special Features: The Blu-Ray includes commentary from the director and several featurettes about the film, including backgrounds on some of the creatures featured here. Several worthy featurettes also delve deeper into the fight scenes here, showing some behind-the-scenes commentary on the action sequences.


text:
Advertisement |
Bobby Ryan (born Robert Shane Stevenson on March 17, 1987) is an American professional ice hockey player currently playing for the Anaheim Ducks of the National Hockey League (NHL). He was drafted 2nd overall in the 2005 NHL Entry Draft by the Anaheim Ducks.
Ryan grew up in Collingswood, New Jersey.
After winning national championships with his minor hockey team, the Los Angeles Junior Kings, he initially committed to playing for the U.S. National Under-18 Program. Despite telling Ontario Hockey League (OHL) teams he would not play major junior, Ryan was selected by the Owen Sound Attack 7th overall in the 2003 OHL Selection Draft. He was convinced to play for the team and immediately began his major junior career with a 39-point rookie campaign in 2003–04. After improving to 89 points the following season, Ryan was drafted second overall by the Anaheim Ducks in the 2005 NHL Entry Draft


text:
Wow, what a title!! Today is jam packed with fun :) First let's start with the challenge. It's Friday which means it's time for another Taylored Expression Cupcake Challenge!! I just love this sketch. It lends itself to so many ideas. So now for the peek. The cupcake image is the new TCP birthday stamps that have been released TODAY!! Yep, that's right you can get your hot little hands on these adorable sets right now :) I think these sets are my favorite TCP images so far. They are so whimsical and cute and the best part is they are full of cupcakes!! You can never have to many cupcake stamps*smile*
So if you want to play along here are all the details.
1.You're not required to use cupcakes for the challenge, but if you got 'em why not use 'em!? :)
2.You're welcome to create something other than a card, just stick as closely to the sketch as possible and you'll be eligible for the prize drawing!
3.If you're uploading to Splitcoast use keyword TECC31 (for Taylored Expressions Cupcake Challenge 30 or link your creation on this post.
4.Each week, I plan to have a Featured Cupcake Sampler! The cutest and most creative sample from the previous week will receive the featured cupcake sampler honors. The winner will receive the sketch ahead of time in order to create a card that will be featured along with a link to your blog on Cupcake Friday!
5.Featured Cupcake Sampler this week is Nancy Morgan from Paper Smiles!
Don't forget to check out the beautiful creations from the other cupcake challenge samplers:
Stephanie Hargis: Steph's Stampin' Stuff
Now for the super exciting part. The winner of the TCP blog candy giveaway is Jackie Wright
Random Integer Generator
Here are your random numbers:
Timestamp: 2008-08-29 18:50:03 UTC
- jackiestamps4fun said...
Chocolate with chocolate!
- Congrats Jackie! Email me your snail mail so I can get this baby to you :)


text:
We love this little travel companion. They're about the size of a normal soft toy, well medium ish, and they fit perfectly into a rucksack or your child's Trunki. It has a little face on the front which is soft and fleecy for when your child is feeling cold and on the back is a more breathable material for when your child gets too hot but still wants to get comfy. It even has little ears, very cute!
To use the SnooziHedz it has a little zip at the side which opens to reveal a soft blanket, which is actually massive by the way, and a plastic pillow which you can inflate and replace where the blanket was to create a soft pillow. Then you just zip the side back up and you have a comfy travel pillow and blanket. The blanket has a little pouch on the front so even Teddy can have a snooze in comfort!
One of the best features of the SnooziHedz is that it has a unique Trunki Grip system, one on the pillow and blanket, which allows you to attach the blanket to the pillow to keep it secure and for your peace of mind so you don't accidently leave one part behind. I also noticed that the way they have made the zip at the side means it is always covered by fabric so no nasty sore zip hurting your childs head if they happen to lay on it.
Logan really loved his SnooziHedz, he snuggled up with it on the plane when watching some of his waybuloo on the archos. It really did keep him warm as the plane was freezing with the recycled air! I found it really easy to use and then re-pack so no problems at all for us. As Logan is still young he didn't use the pillow much so we swapped it for his trunki neck support instead but I can see him using the pillow in a few months or so.
The SnooziHedz is available in Pink or Blue and can be purchased from Trunki's very own online shop RRP £19.99.
Overall I love our SnooziHedz and will be using it at every opportunity. In the car, on the train, up in the air on a plane! We'll use it as much as possible and it's perfect for this winter weather coming in now. It's a bit pricey though which will probably put some people off but you'll get so much use out of this product it really is worth it.
Mummies rating - 9/10
Logan's rating - 8/10
Please visit www.trunki.co.uk for more products and information. You can also see what Trunki get up to on Facebook and Twitter so why not pop over and say hello! Remember to tell them The Breastest News sent you.